St Francis Group 1 Limited & Ors v John Thomas Kelly & Anor

Points of Dispute in a detailed assessment must identify the challenged items and state concisely the nature and grounds of each objection. The receiving party must have an adequate opportunity to understand and answer the case against the bill.

Those principles apply to inter partes assessments, although particularity need not reach the standard expected where the paying party has inspected the receiving party’s files. A paying party may challenge every item, but must identify a clear and pertinent basis for doing so. Generic, duplicated or “cut and paste” objections which leave the receiving party and the court to discover the issues during the hearing should be struck out.

The claimants sought detailed assessment of costs recoverable from the first defendant under a contractual claim waiver and an order made by Master Pester on 8 August 2023. The bill comprised 1,103 items. The defendant raised identical objections against almost every timed item, alleging, among other matters, excessive time, inappropriate fee-earner grades, duplication, work outside the scope of the costs order and irrecoverable work.

The claimants argued that the objections were inadequately particularised. The central issue was whether the objections complied with the requirements governing Points of Dispute in an assessment between parties, and which objections could proceed to detailed assessment.

1. Applicable principles. The court applied the guidance in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178. The receiving party must be able to understand which bill items are challenged and why, so as to prepare an adequate response. The hearing must not require the parties or court to identify the issues for the first time, and Points of Dispute must facilitate a fair, just and proportionate hearing.
2. Inter partes assessment. Those principles apply to assessments between parties. However, particularity need not be artificially demanding where the paying party has not inspected the receiving party’s files. The court adopted the distinction explained in Wazen v Kahn [2024] EWHC 1083 (SCCO) and applied the approach discussed in O’Sullivan v Holmes and Hills LLP [2023] EWHC 508 (KB).
3. Application. The identical objections inserted against 1,080 timed items added nothing to the preliminary points. Objections alleging that work was outside the costs order, duplicated, administrative or excessive had generally failed to identify the relevant items or the applicable ground. They were therefore liable to be struck out. Specific objections and fee-earner-grade challenges sufficiently identified in the bill could proceed to assessment, subject to the presumption under CPR 44.5 that costs under the contractual indemnity were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.
4. Disposition. Preliminary point 1 was struck out except for two specific examples. Preliminary points 6 and 11 were struck out. Under point 7, excessive-time and delegation challenges could proceed, but duplication challenges were struck out. Point 8 was struck out except for specified items. Point 9 was struck out except for identified duplication items. Preliminary points 2–4 had already been resolved.